Government Regulations Harming US Refiners

March was a challenging month for refiners. Three weeks ago I discussed the issue of the looming ethanol blend wall, which is leading to soaring costs for refiners as they attempt to comply with federal ethanol mandates. Refiners saw their share prices beaten up a bit as a result.

Then, at the end of March, came news that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to lower the limit on sulfur in gasoline from 30 parts per million (ppm) down to 10 ppm. The cost of complying with the new regulations has been estimated in the range of $10 billion in capital for adding new hydrotreater capacity to the refineries. Annual operating costs are expected to increase by $3.4 billion by 2030, according to the EPA.

“The program would cost about a penny per gallon of gasoline, and about $130 per vehicle. The annual cost of the overall program in 2030 would be approximately $3.4 billion; however, EPA estimates that in 2030, the annual monetized health benefits of the proposed Tier 3 standards would be between $8 and $23 billion.”

The EPA cited the following justification for the tighter standards:

“The new standards would annually prevent:

• Between 820 and 2,400 premature deaths• 3,200 hospital admissions and asthma-related emergency room visits• 22,000 asthma exacerbations• 23,000 upper and lower respiratory symptoms in children• 1.8 million lost school days, work days and minor-restricted activities”

I won’t dissect the EPA’s estimates on the health benefits, because I simply don’t know if they are reasonable. But the agency’s estimate of a penny per gallon in increased costs isn’t realistic.

US demand for gasoline is now at 133 billion gallons per year. Some of that gasoline is imported, and some is already at the lower sulfur level. But even if you spread the EPA’s own estimate of $3.4 billion in new operating costs across all 133 billion gallons of US gasoline consumption, that alone comes to more than 2.5 cents per gallon. That is 2.5 times the EPA’s estimate of 1 cent per gallon in increased costs even before accounting for the additional capital expenditures and the other factors I discuss below. Even if we assume that US gasoline consumption again begins to grow, there is no way that $3.4 billion in new annual operating costs translates into only 1 cent per gallon.

I was working at the ConocoPhillips refinery in Billings, Montana when the ultra-low-sulfur-diesel (ULSD) specifications were enacted. Thus, I got a firsthand look at the situation before and after these regulations were implemented. Again, I am not arguing that the new specs weren’t needed, but instead simply making observations of what transpired. (For the record, I support tough environmental standards, but as an investor think it’s also important to properly calculate their costs.)

First, ConocoPhillips invested a great deal of capital across the company to make sure that we could comply with the new regulations -- as did many other refiners. I am not sure if the amount was made public, but these hydrotreater projects cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Following the conversion we experienced ongoing costs to the hydrotreaters that were required to reduce the sulfur content. These included maintenance expenses as well as the cost of the additional hydrogen.

Those costs are well-known, but the cost of ULSD after the new specs came into effect was higher than many anticipated. This is because there were at least three other impacts that weren’t widely anticipated.

First, the additional level of processing reduces the overall product yield. When hydrocarbons are fed to a hydrotreater some of what would have ended up as diesel is converted into light gases that end up being burned in the refinery as fuel gas. A lower liquid product yield from a barrel of oil will necessarily increase the cost of the product.

Second, these changes increase the complexity of the refinery, which is something I pointed out in a 2007 column. The more failure points within a refinery, the more potential for an outage. While I wouldn’t attribute it entirely to the new ULSD regulations, according to the Energy Information Administration’s US Percent Utilization of Refinery Operable Capacity, the average refinery utilization in the five years before the new regulations (2001-2005) was 91.9 percent. Starting in 2006 -- when the regulations came into effect -- refinery utilization never again reached 90 percent. Utilization declined for four straight years, averaging 86.6 percent in the five years beginning with the implementation of the ULSD specifications (2006-2010).

Finally, some refiners decided that it was more economical not to invest the money, and instead simply export the product into markets that could still accept the higher sulfur diesel. In the five years prior to the new regulations, exports of higher sulfur diesel averaged 43,000 barrels per day. By 2008 those exports had skyrocketed to nearly 500,000 barrels per day, and today remain about four times higher than they were prior to 2006.

These factors resulted in higher production costs and significantly higher diesel prices. Again it is instructive to look at the five-year time periods just before and after the regulations took effect. From 2001 to 2005, the average retail price of diesel was 4 cents per gallon cheaper than gasoline. From 2006 to 2010, that relationship was flipped as retail diesel was 17 cents per gallon more expensive than gasoline.

Whether the more restrictive sulfur specifications are money well spent is an entirely different issue, and it isn’t my intent to argue that these specs should not be implemented. However, the EPA’s estimate that the incremental cost added to a gallon of gasoline will only be a penny per gallon is not credible.

I don’t believe the new specs will have a huge long-term effect on refiners, but they will cut into profits. Companies will be forced to allocate capital, which will mean diverting it from other projects that could have added to profitability. In light of this, the increased cost of complying with the ethanol mandates, the recent softening in the price of gasoline (which has cut into margins), and the fact that refiners have had such a tremendous run over the past year, conservative investors would probably be wise to lighten up on the sector.

For those with a longer-term horizon, it is certainly frustrating to see the recent run of strong performance partially derailed by the government, but the refining sector will survive. If you are investing for the next five years, you could do a lot worse than sticking with US refiners.

Robert Rapier

Related posts

Hard to feel sorry for the oil industry what with massive profits, massive tax credits and Congressmen like Speaker Boehner buying up tar sand stocks before trying to cram the Keystone Pipeline down our throats so Texas Refineries can export refined product to Europe at a profit... As for Ethanol? Hey! Big Agriculture wants a piece of the pie too! Plenty of taxpayer pockets to pick for everyone! Quit yer bitchin!

The taxpayer, consumer and our budget deficit better off if Big Oil and Big Ag's welfare checks were stopped and the marketplace was allowed to do its thing.

Andrea Diederech on April 26 2013 said:

Aw, I'm certainly concerned about this just being the nail on the coffin for those almost bankrupt oil companies, gee. That estimated $10 billion in capital lost to either expand the refineries existing hydrotreater's capacity or replace the hydrotreaters to large capacity ones that they're in compliance with new EPA regulations AND and estimated additional $3.4 billion annually in operating costs will completely crush big oil. How dare the EPA do something like this?! Those people are just weak already, definite 47%-ers, so why bother with this for people who won't even pay their hospital bill and don't have fabulous private health care coverage (the American way) because they can't pay for premiums even with Obamacare.

I'm far more concerned about the state that some oil companies, especially ExxonMobil, bless them. They only had profits of $452.9 billion in 2012 and only had a 28% jump in revenues from 2011. I hope their venture into fracking and purchase of XTO Energy in what, 2010? Yeah, then. I just hope that pays off. And dear me, prayer cicle for Chevron, $11 billion lawsuit in Brazil, clean-up after a natural gas rig explosion in Nigeria, and a neverending lawsuit in Ecuador that if Ecuadorian law allowed it it would be better to settle probably but whatever, maybe they have a legal team that doesn't know when. To name 3 of the legal issues. Plus it's their profit amount revenue in 2 years.

Sca-ary. I need a Xanax now. (I'm also a big pharma fan.) Okay, Chevron... oh, they were in much more dire straits than ExxonMobil with only $245.6 billion in profits. Sad, isn't it? I cried a little.

I do think it is time for big agriculture to have a little time in the spotlight, though. Get those federal subsidies, work it, work it. If big oil can, come on, corn and ethanol should get a crack at government cheese for corporations and those already wealthy. And those tax breaks plus loopholes? Oh, god, yep. Oil needs to let big ag taste that.

LOL. No, this article is like an adulr crying over losing a $5 that got lost in the wash. Petty, horrible, callous and is a little peek under the facade big oil tries to run around with but fails if to fool anyone that isn't in the oil business or an aged yuppie who failed at becoming a yuppie and was more of a a guppie. The exceptions are essentially the people who cling to their words like it's irrefutable truth, or pundit junkies who do the same thing for people already mentally numb and void of opinions they made independently.